“his blood be on us and on our children!”: a …biblicaltheology.com/research/hensleyj01.pdf19...

AJBT Volume 21(18), May 3, 2020

1

“HIS BLOOD BE ON US AND ON OUR CHILDREN!”:

A CONTEXTUAL STUDY AND REEVALUATION OF THE

INFAMOUS BLOOD CURSE

Abstract

After the horrors of the Holocaust, many churches began to reconsider

their stance towards the Jews. This reconsideration consistently included

the Gospel of Matthew’s statement, “His blood be on us and on our

children!” For centuries, this “blood curse” has served as a basis for

Christian anti-Jewish violence and Christian animus towards Jews. But

perhaps this statement was never intended to lead to such atrocities. This

article examines both this phrase’s textual and cultural context, concluding

that the anti-Jewish slant was interpreted into the text itself.

Keywords: Matthew, anti-Judaism, antisemitism, blood curse, interfaith

Introduction

The darkness of the Holocaust cast a spotlight onto Christianity. Germany,

the country that initiated the Holocaust, had a population that was nearly

entirely Christian.1 The Pope, one of the most respected Christians in the

world, remained more or less silent throughout the tragedy. 2 Some

Christians even went as far as staffing concentration camps.3

How could those who subscribed to a religion that taught “you shall love

your neighbor as yourself” (Mt 22:39)4 as the second most important

commandment––second only to loving God with all of your heart, soul,

and mind (Mt 22:36–37)––have followers or members who stood by and

1 “The German Church and the Nazi State,” United States Holocaust Memorial

Museum, accessed March 6, 2018,

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206.

2 Michael Phayer, The Catholic Church and the Holocaust (Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2000), xii.

3 David Cymet, History vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, the Third Reich, and the

Catholic Church (Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012), 337.

4 All Biblical quotations are taken from the English Standard Version unless

otherwise noted.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206

Jason Hensley

2

watched as the Jews were slowly excluded from German society, or even

worse, have individuals who actively took part in this spurning––to the

point of murdering Jews themselves?

Reflection upon the Holocaust has prompted deep scrutiny into

Christianity, its roots, its texts, and its values––and particularly the

relationship of Christians to Jews. Thus, just three years after the war, the

World Council of Churches declared that antisemitism was irreconcilable

with Christianity.5 The House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church issued

a similar statement in 1964.6 In 1965, the Catholic Church followed suit

with Nostra Aetate. 7 Almost forty years later, the Catholic Church

published We Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah, which urged

Christians to reflect on Christian attitudes towards Jews.8

Numerous books have been published about Christian theology and its

relationship to antisemitism. This essay is meant to be an addition to that

literature––specifically examining the Gospel of Matthew and the phrase

“His blood be on us and on our children!” and the possible anti-Jewish

nature of its teaching. In doing so, this study will define antisemitism and

anti-Judaism, and will consider the textual and cultural contexts of the

verse. Finally, it will assert, based on the evidence considered, that severe

anti-Judaism was simply interpreted into both the verse and the gospel and

was not the original message of the composition.

5 The World Council of Churches, quoted in “Jews and Christians: The Unfolding

Interfaith Relationship,” United States Holocaust Memorial and Museum,

accessed March 15, 2018, https://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-

advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-

and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationship.

6 House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church, quoted in Clark Williamson, A Guest

in the House of Israel: Post-Holocaust Church Theology (Louisville:

Westminster/John Knox Press, 1993), 36.

7 Pope Paul VI, “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian

Religions,” The Holy See, accessed August 2, 2019,

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-

ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.

8 Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, “We Remember: A Reflection

on the Shoah,” The Holy See, accessed August 2, 2019,

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_

pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html.

https://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationshiphttps://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationshiphttps://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationshiphttp://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html


3

Defining Anti-Judaism

Prejudice and hatred against Jews today is generally termed

antisemitism9––and yet to better understand the term, it is useful to know

more about its etymology: the word antisemitism was coined in the 1800s,

and expressed an antipathy towards Jews on perceived racial grounds,

rather than religious. 10 In this way, antisemitism was meant to be

specifically for the new age––when religious differences were put aside

and emphasis was put on nationalism and race. Jews were seen as a distinct

race, as Semites––and thus anti-Semites could be opposed to Semites,

regardless of whether someone was part of Judaism as a religion. Though

the term has come to mean hatred for anything Jewish––regardless of

whether it is religious or cultural––its origins tend to make it appear

anachronistic when referring to Christian animosity toward Jews. Thus,

scholars often make a distinction between antisemitism and anti-Judaism–

–or hatred of religious Judaism.

We Remember defines anti-Judaism as “long-standing sentiments of

mistrust and hostility” specifically toward Judaism.11 Robert Chazan gives

a more detailed description, stating that anti-Judaism is Christian

negativity towards religious Jews specifically because of a disagreement

in theology. 12 Ruether gives a similar definition to Chazan. 13 Later,

however, she further details her definition, essentially arguing that

Christian downplaying and criticism of Judaism,14 as well as attempts to

9 “anti-Semitism,” Cambridge Dictionary, accessed December 22, 2019,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-semitism.

10 Robert Wistrich, Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (New York: Schocken

Books, 1991), xv.

11 Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews, “We Remember: A

Reflection on the Shoah,” The Holy See, accessed August 2, 2019,



12 Robert Chazan, From Anti-Judaism to Anti-Semitism (New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2016), viii.

13 Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979),

30.

14 Ibid., 95.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-semitismhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html

Jason Hensley

4

minimize Judaism as a way by which one can come to God, is anti-

Judaism.15

Nevertheless, these definitions can lead to a definition of anti-Judaism that

is so broad that it inadvertently labels large swaths of Christianity as anti-

Jewish––denigrating Christians who merely believe that the way to God

is through Jesus, regardless of if they hold any animosity or hostility

towards the Jews. 16 Therefore, anti-Judaism should not be defined as

seeing Jesus as “the way, and the truth, and the life” (Jn 14:6). Rather, it

is much more disparaging and sinister, and, for the purpose of this essay,

will be defined by any combination of the following characteristics:

portrayal of Judaism as being eternally rejected by God, a replacement of

the Jews with the Church, 17 an inherited guilt upon all followers of

Judaism for Jesus’s crucifixion, 18 and/or a demonizing of those who

follow Judaism.19

Rather than placing the emphasis on a theological disagreement with

Judaism as a religion, this definition places the emphasis on the

relationship that the Christian has with the Jew. Civil religious

disagreement must be acceptable in a society based upon tolerance. But,

when that theological disagreement crosses into judging the character and

15 Ibid., 106–107.

16 Thus, McKnight: “It must be admitted by all objective historians and theologians

that tolerant and civil ‘anti’ sentiments flowing from any firm religious

conviction are beyond the capacity for historians to pronounce a final verdict

regarding truth. Just as an orthodox Jew, by definition, must think that

Christianity is wrong at some level (and Jesus Christ not God's sole agent of

salvation), so an orthodox Christian, by definition, must think that any

expression of Judaism is wrong at some level if it excludes Jesus Christ as

God’s sole agent of salvation.” Scot McKnight, “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s

Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early

Christianity, eds. Craig A. Evans & Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress

Press, 1993), 56-57.

17 Lloyd Gaston, “Paul and the Torah,” in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of

Christianity, ed. Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist Press, 1979), 50.

18 Amy Jill-Levine, “Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Good News or Bad?,” Jesus,

Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, eds. Paula Fredriksen & Adele Reinhartz

(Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 91.

19 Rosemary Ruether, “Old Problems and New Dimensions,” in Anti-Semitism and

the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist Press,

1979), 249.


5

the value of the adherents of Judaism, then the disagreement has passed

from the realm of civility into anti-Judaism.

The Passages

There are a number of passages and themes in the Gospel of Matthew that

have been denoted as anti-Jewish20––in fact, some have even suspected

that it was specific texts within this gospel that led to the poor Christian

response to the Holocaust.21 In considering some of these texts, Lloyd

Gaston has gone so far as saying that Matthew’s anti-Judaism is so strong

that the book “can no longer be part of the personal canon of many.”22

Daniel Goldhagen, in looking at the three synoptic gospels, has noted that

Mark has approximately 40 anti-Jewish verses, Luke has 60, and Matthew

has 80.23 Since this article cannot evaluate every theme or passage in

Matthew that has ever been labeled as anti-Jewish, it will examine only

the most notorious of the statements24––Matthew’s blood curse, in which

the Jews declare that Jesus’s blood should be “on us and on our children!”

(Mt 27:25).

The Textual Context of Matthew 27

In his phrase, “His blood be on us and on our children!,” Matthew uses the

Greek word πᾶς, which is translated as “all.” While the word itself it all-

encompassing, it often allows for exceptions. Thus, Matthew describes all

of Jerusalem being troubled with Herod after hearing the news that the

20 Scot McKnight, “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in

Theological Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, eds. Craig

A. Evans & Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 59.

21 Duncan Macpherson, “Michael Prior, the Bible and Anti-Semitism,” Holy Land

Studies 6.2 (2007): 151, ISSN 1474-9475.

22 Lloyd Gaston, “The Messiah of Israel as Teacher of the Gentiles: The Setting of

Matthew's Christology,” Union Seminary Review 29.1 (1975): 40.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002096437502900103.

23 Daniel Jonah Goldhagen, A Moral Reckoning (New York: Alfred A. Knopf,

2002), 263.

24 Terence L. Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament (Waco,

TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 30; James Charlesworth, “The Gospel of

John: Exclusivism Caused by a Social Setting Different from That of Jesus

(John 11:54 and 14:6),” in Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel, eds. R.

Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, & F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 248.

Jason Hensley

6

“king of the Jews” had been born (2:3)––and yet the phrase does not mean

that every person in the city was troubled, but that there was a general

feeling of concern in the city. In the next chapter, Matthew writes that all

of Jerusalem, Judea, and the surrounding region were going out to visit

Jesus––once again, this must be hyperbole. And thus Matthew’s use of the

word appears to allow for discrepancy: “all” does not necessarily have to

be understood as being all-inclusive.“ All the people,” could simply refer

to a group of Jews, rather than all Jews, all of the time.25 It would appear

as though this indeed is the way that the word is used in this passage:

contextually, Matthew very specifically states that those who shouted “His

blood be on us an on our children!” were simply part of a crowd that had

gathered (Mt 27:15, 20, 24). Even more, Matthew places culpability for

this statement, not merely upon the crowd, but even more upon another

group: “Now the chief priests and the elders persuaded the crowd to ask

for Barabbas and destroy Jesus” (Mt 27:20)––this would appear to be the

focus on Matthew’s ire. It was not that the crowd necessarily had a mind

of its own, but that it was following the leadership and charisma of a group

of men who stood for the religious establishment, and specifically, for the

temple. This conclusion is reinforced by Matthew’s description of Jesus’s

death throughout his gospel: four times Jesus references those who would

bring about his death (Mt 16:21, 17:12, 17:22-23, 20:18), and in three of

those instances, Jesus states that he would be killed by the “scribes” or the

“chief priests”––and only once refers to his killers in general terms (Mt

17:22-23). It would appear, therefore, as though Matthew’s intention was

to place the blame for Jesus's death, not upon the Jews in general (Matthew





7

only uses the word“ Jews” five times in the entirety of the gospel),26 but

upon the Sadducees, the scribes, and their children.27

Nevertheless, this proposition can be expanded––it is not simply that

Matthew wants to place the death of Jesus mainly upon the priests and the

scribes, but he also appears to include the Pharisees, in what he appears to

see as the religious establishment.28 Therefore, in the chapters that begin

with Jesus’s entry into Jerusalem and lead up to his crucifixion, Matthew

repeatedly notes Jesus’s condemnation––not of the Jews, but specifically

of the religious leaders of the time, generalized as the Sadducees,

Pharisees, and scribes. Thus, after entering Jerusalem and casting out the

moneychangers from the temple, Jesus was confronted by the chief priests

and the scribes (Mt 21:15). The next day, the chief priests and elders

demanded to know the source of his authority (Mt 21:23), and after

refusing to answer their question, Jesus told two parables––the latter of

which has been characterized by numerous scholars as anti-Jewish.29 Once

26 Reimund Bieringer, Didier Pollefeyt, Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville,

“Wrestling with Johannine Anti-Judaism: A Hermeneutical Framework for the

Analysis of the Current Debate,” in Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel, eds. R.


Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 15.

27 Amy Jill-Levine, “Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Good News or Bad?,” in Jesus,



28 Philip Cunningham, Education for Shalom (Philadelphia: The American

Interfaith Institute, 1995), 10; Peter J. Tomson, ‘“Jews ’in the Gospel of John as

Compared with the Palestinian Talmud, the Synoptics, and Some New

Testament Apocrypha,” in Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel, eds. R.


Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 200; Terence L. Donaldson, Jews and

Anti-Judaism in the New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,

2010), 34.

29 Steve Motyer, Antisemitism in the New Testament (Cambridge: Grove Books

Limited, 2002), 12; Douglas R. A. Hare, “The Rejection of the Jews in the

Synoptic Gospels and Acts,” in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of

Christianity, ed. Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist Press, 1979), 38-39; Lilian

Freudmann, Antisemitism in the New Testament (Lanham, MD: University

Press of America, Inc., 1994), 79-80; Amy-Jill Levine, “Matthew, Mark, and

Luke: Good News or Bad?,” Jesus, Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, eds.

Paula Fredriksen & Adele Reinhartz (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press,

2002), 83.

Jason Hensley

8

again, however, Matthew specifically states that both parables are about

the chief priests and the Pharisees (Mt 21:45).30 After those two parables,

Jesus told another––the parable of the wedding feast. Just like the parable

of the tenants, this is also considered anti-Jewish by many scholars,31 and

with Matthew stating that “the Pharisees went and plotted how to entangle

him in his words” (Mt 22:15), directly after this parable, he implies that

the parable was also specifically directed at the Pharisees.32 As part of this

plan to entangle him, the Pharisees and the Herodians ask him whether or

not one should pay tribute to Caesar (Mt 22:17), and after this question,

the Sadducees challenge him regarding his belief in the resurrection (Mt

22:23). The next challenge comes from a Pharisee––after the Pharisees

had gathered together again in an attempt to trick him (Mt 22:34-35), and

then Jesus specifically asks the Pharisees a question about the Messiah (Mt

22:41). From there, Jesus turns towards his disciples and the crowd and

launches into a diatribe against the scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:13),

specifically stating that his criticism is leveled at them at least six times

(Mt 23:13, 14, 15, 23, 25, 29). This polemic ends with Jesus placing the

blame for the blood of every righteous person on the shoulders of the

scribes and Pharisees (Mt 23:35), not upon Jews or Judaism in general.

This places the Pharisees into the same camp as the Sadducees, who are

blamed for the death, not of every prophet, but of Jesus himself.33 It would

come upon their generation 34 ––and Matthew has Jesus describe the

30 An identification where Matthew differs from Mark, and which makes it appear

as though Matthew is “specifically targeting them;” Philip Cunningham,

Education for Shalom (Philadelphia: The American Interfaith Institute, 1995),

9-10.

31 Rosemary Ruether, Faith and Fratricide (New York: The Seabury Press, 1979),

85; Douglas R. A. Hare, “The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptic Gospels

and Acts,” in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Alan T.

Davies (New York, Paulist Press, 1979), 39; Terence L. Donaldson, Jews and

Anti-Judaism in the New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor University Press,

2010), 37.

32 Or perhaps the chief priests; Philip Cunningham, Education for Shalom

(Philadelphia: The American Interfaith Institute, 1995), 10.

33 Ibid.

34 McKnight notes that the word for generation, γενεά, refers to the generation

contemporary with Jesus, and has a particular focus on the Pharisees; Scot

McKnight, “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological


9

consequence of this guilt as the destruction of Jerusalem and the temple

(Mt 23:36-39, 24:1-2), supporting the proposition that the statement “his

blood be on us and on our children,” was meant to refer to that generation

and their families that experienced 70 CE,35 with a specific focus upon the

religious rulers, who experienced a vast change in the way in which their

religion was practiced when the temple was destroyed.

By contrast, Matthew writes very differently about the crowd. Indeed, it

was the crowd that Matthew has proclaiming “his blood be on us an on

our children,” but this was the crowd after it had been stirred up by the

chief priests. Other times, without the interference from the religious

rulers, Matthew describes the crowds in very sympathetic terms: Jesus had

compassion upon them because they were like sheep without a shepherd

(Mt 9:36), Jesus had compassion on them on healed their sick (Mt 14:14),

and Jesus was accepted by the crowd as a prophet and the son of David

(Mt 21:9, 11). Oftentimes, the crowd is described in contrast to the

religious leaders––although it is not always described positively. 36

Nevertheless, what should be noted here is that Matthew tends to distance

the crowd from the rulers, with the rulers as the ones who are the focus on

Jesus’s vitriol. Hence, even in the context of the crucifixion, Matthew

repeatedly shows Jesus’s popularity with the crowd and describes the

crowd as his supporters (Mt 21:1-11, 26), with the Pharisees actually

fearing the crowd’s loyalty to Jesus (Mt 21:46, 26:5).37 In that light, Hay

suggests that the chief priests who condemned Jesus “had no mandate

from the Jewish people for what they were about to do,” and instead of the

crowd of Matthew 27:25 representing all Jews, it represented a “crowd of

Perspective,” in Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, eds. Craig A. Evans &

Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 71.

35 Amy-Jill Levine, “Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Good News or Bad?,” Jesus,


(Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 92; Scot McKnight, “A

Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological Perspective,” in

Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, eds. Craig A. Evans & Donald A.

Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 76.

36 Terence L. Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament (Waco,

TX: Baylor University Press, 2010), 34-35.

37 Malcom Hay, Thy Brother’s Blood, (New York: Hart Publishing Company,

1975), 13.

Jason Hensley

10

idlers and ruffians which can be always collected for an evil purpose, to

provide a democratic covering for what [the chief priests] proposed to

do.”38

Perhaps it could also be argued that this is the way in which the phrase

“his blood be on us and our children” was understood initially: there is one

possible reference to the phrase inside of the New Testament itself. In the

book of the Acts of the Apostles, the chief priests say to the disciples: “you

have filled Jerusalem with your teaching, and you intend to bring this

man’s blood upon us” (Acts 5:28)––as though the author of Acts sought to

show a fulfillment of Matthew’s phrase.39

At the same time, Matthew does not solely focus on the religious rulers. It

is not just them that are implicated, but also their followers.40 Perhaps this

is why Matthew specifically notes that the crowd that cried out for Jesus’s

blood to be upon them and their children was made up of those who were

encouraged by the chief priests and elders––these were meant to be seen

as their followers.

According to the textual context, therefore, the focus of Matthew

vituperative language was not all of the Jews, but was rather a specific few

sects within Judaism––namely, the Sadducees, the scribes, and the

Pharisees.

38 Ibid.

39 John Hellawell appears to detect an allusion in these two verses. Barnes also

notes the similarity of the phrase. John Hellawell, Beginning at Jerusalem

(Birmingham, United Kingdom: The Christadelphian, 2014), 83; also Albert

Barnes, Barnes New Testament Notes (Grand Rapids: Christian Classics

Ethereal Library, 2003), 1408.





11

The Cultural Context of Matthew 27 - Authorship and Audience

When an individual presents information, the meaning of the

information is nuanced by the speaker’s background and the

audience’s background.41 Therefore, who was Matthew, and who was

his audience? The gospel itself does not claim any specific authorship. However, early

Church writers uniformly assign its composition to Matthew––whose

other name was Levi (Mk 2:14)––the Jewish tax collector who became

one of Jesus’s disciples (Mt 9:9, 10:3).42

Matthew’s Judaism comes out in the gospel itself. It is Matthew’s Jesus

that declares that he has not come to “abolish the law” but rather to fulfill

it, and that “not an iota, not a dot, will pass from the Law until all is

accomplished” (5:17-18).43 To this Nicholls adds, “His statement could

hardly be more emphatic in its adherence to the Torah as a divine

revelation of the right way of life.”44 The Sermon on the Mount thus

becomes Jesus’s interpretation of how a faithful Jew should follow the

Torah. Later, rather than criticizing the Torah itself, Matthew again has

Jesus interpret it for his followers (12:1-14).45 Near the end of the gospel,

Jesus tells his disciples to listen to the instructions of the scribes and

Pharisees, because they “sit on Moses’ seat” (23:2). Thus, upholding the

41 Amy-Jill Levine, “Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Good News or Bad?,” in Jesus,


(Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 77-78.

42 Craig L. Bloomberg, “Matthew,” in Commentary on the New Testament’s Use

of the Old Testament, eds. G.K. Beale & D.A. Carson (Grand Rapids: Baker

Academic, 2007), 1.




44 William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A History of Hate (Lanham: Rowman

and Littlefield Publishers, 2004), 64; Sandmel disagrees, arguing that Jesus is

creating a new Christian law; Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New

Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 52; Considering Matthew’s

clear statement that Jesus has not come to abolish the law, I agree with

Nicholls.

45 Aaron M. Gale, “The Gospel According to Matthew,” in The Jewish Annotated

New Testament, eds. Amy-Jill Levine & Marc Zvi Brettler (Oxford: Oxford

University Press, 2017), 9.

Jason Hensley

12

Torah becomes a theme throughout Matthew’s gospel,46 with Jesus giving

instruction on sacrifices, vows, and endorsing the idea that God dwells in

the temple at Jerusalem.47 It has even been suggested that Matthew used a

rabbinic form of interpretation.48

But what about Matthew’s audience? Scholars are

divided over whether the gospel was written to all of

Jesus’s followers, or to a specific sub-group, such as

Jewish Christians, 49 and the gospel itself does not

specify an audience.50 Nevertheless, consider the first

words of the text: “The book of the genealogy of Jesus

Christ, the son of David, the son of Abraham” (Mt 1:1).

Why would it be significant to Gentiles that Jesus was

descended from Abraham? Why would it be significant

that he was the son of David? Yet for a Jewish audience,

these words would have been weighty: here was one

who was Jewish himself, and even more, from the kingly

line of David51––the one who had been promised that

Messiah would come from his descendants (2 Sm 7:12-

16).52

46 Francois P. Viljoen, “The Torah in Matthew: Still Valid, yet to be Interpreted

Alternatively,” In die Skriflig 50, no. 3 (July 2016): 3, accessed August 2,

2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i3.2036.

47 E.P. Sanders, “Jesus, Ancient Judaism, and Modern Christianity: The Quest

Continues,” in Jesus, Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, eds. Paula Fredriksen

& Adele Reinhartz (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 39.




49 Ibid.




51 David, out of all of the kings mentioned in this genealogy, is the only individual

specifically called a king (1:6).

52 John P. Meier, “Reflection on Jesus-of-History Research Today,” Jesus’

Jewishness, ed. James H. Charlesworth (New York & Philadelphia: The

Crossroad Publishing Company & The American Interfaith Institute, 1991), 99.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i3.2036


13

This same idea is shown by the way in which Matthew describes Jesus's

birth––calling Jesus the “king of the Jews” (2:2), quoting Micah 5 in

regard to a “ruler” coming from Bethlehem, and changing the quotation

so that it no longer reads that Bethlehem was “little” among the cities

of Judah, but instead calling Bethlehem “no means least.”53 In the same

way, Matthew also omits the Lukan portion of the narrative that

emphasizes Jesus's humble birth in Bethlehem––with Luke focusing on

Jesus being born in a manger (Luke 2:7, 12, 16) and being visited by

shepherds (Luke 2:8-20)––and instead emphasizes Jesus being visited

by magi and chased by the current king of Jerusalem. This theme of

kingship is emphasized all throughout Matthew’s gospel, 54 with

Matthew referring to Jesus as “son of David” 10 times (1:1, 1:20, 9:27,

12:23, 15:22, 20:30, 31, 21:9, 15, 22:42).55 It was a bold proclamation:

Jesus was the king of the Jews.56

Yet, not only does Matthew attempt to show Jesus as the king of the

Jews, he wants his readers to see Jesus as another Moses.57 The

Midrashic description of Moses’s birth bear similarity to Matthew’s

story of Mary’s miraculous pregnancy, Joseph's intention to divorce

53 Which Lillian Freudmann notes is a purposeful misquote, although she takes it as

evidence that Matthew lacks understanding of the Jewish Scriptures; Lilian

Freudmann, Antisemitism in the New Testament (Lanham, MD: University

Press of America, Inc., 1994), 63-64. This, however, does not have to be the

case and would appear to be a characteristic of Matthew’s use of the LXX:

Harry Whittaker, Studies in the Gospels - Extended Edition (Staffordshire,

United Kingdom: Biblia, 1989), 24, 436, 554-555.

54 Andrew Jukes, Four Views of Christ (Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1982),

29.

55 Mark, Luke, and John combined only use the title 6 times.

56 This is an appellation which Matthew associates with Jesus four times (2:2,

27:11, 29, 37)––and which accounts for four of the five times in which

Matthew uses the word “Jews.”



University Press, 2017), 9-10; Harry Whittaker, Studies in the Gospels -

Extended Edition (Staffordshire, United Kingdom: Biblia, 1989), 40; Elaine

Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 78-79

Jason Hensley

14

her, and the angelic instruction to continue the marriage.58 At the same

time, Matthew, out of all the gospel writers, is the only one to relate the

story of Herod killing all of the baby boys in Bethlehem––so that Jesus,

like Moses, survives a mass slaughter.59 And, as Moses escaped from

Egypt, so did Jesus; even what the angel says to Joseph, “Those who

sought the child’s life are dead,” is a quotation from the story of

Moses.60 As Moses led the Israelites through the Red Sea, and into

wilderness to be tested, so Jesus passes through the Jordan River and

into the wilderness to be tested.61 As Moses fasted for 40 days and 40

nights, so does Jesus. As Moses was tested in bringing water out of a

rock, so Jesus is tempted to create bread out of stones.62 As Moses

ascended Mount Sinai and brought the law, so Jesus ascended a mount

and gave his own interpretation of the law in the Sermon on the

Mount.63 Yet, in some of these comparisons, Jesus is presented, not just

as Moses, but as better than Moses––Moses failed in the temptation of

bringing water from the rock,64 and Jesus's interpretation of the Torah

requires “an enormous increase in religious scrupulosity.”65 Matthew is



University Press, 2017), 9-10.



Academic, 2007), 7.

60 Harry Whittaker, Studies in the Gospels - Extended Edition (Staffordshire,

United Kingdom: Biblia, 1989), 40.






Academic, 2007), 14.

63 Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 81.



Academic, 2007), 14.

65 Elaine Pagels, The Origin of Satan (New York: Vintage Books, 1996), 81-82.

See also Amy-Jill Levine, “Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Good News or Bad?,” in

Jesus, Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, eds. Paula Fredriksen & Adele


15

depicting Jesus as a new Moses––a “superior Moses” 66 ––not for

Gentiles, who would likely not see a significance to the Moses

parallels, but for the sake of his Jewish audience, who revered Moses.

Finally, Matthew uses the Jewish scriptures extensively,67 quoting

from the Old Testament 55 times––almost as many quotations as all

three of the other gospels taken together (which have 65).68 Over and

over, Matthew’s quotations are prefaced by the words “this was to

fulfill”, also known as the “fulfillment formula”––in which he

specifically links his text and description of Jesus with the Jewish

Scriptures.69 The structure of the book also reflects a basis in Judaism:

scholars have noted that Matthew contains five main teaching sections,

divided by the phrase “when Jesus had finished speaking” (7:28, 11:1,

13:53, 19:1, 26:1), which perhaps reflect the five books of the Torah.70

Even Matthew’s Christology is such that it would not necessarily

Reinhartz (Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002), 87. Nicholls

explains: “Accordingly, some of these injunctions are stricter than other

interpretations of the Torah, but none of them is opposed to the Torah itself, in

detail or in spirit. Much of the language of the discourse is hyperbolic or

exaggerated; some of the sayings can be recognized as parable, not intended to

be taken literally. This does not detract from the spiritual ideal set forth, but it

should warn us against excessively literalistic and legalistic interpretations,

often found in Christian writers.” William Nicholls, Christian Antisemitism: A

History of Hate (Lanham: Rowman and Littlefield Publishers, 2004), 65.



University Press, 2017), 10; Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New

Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 51.

67 Samuel Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1978), 50-51.



Academic, 2007), 1.




70 Francois P. Viljoen, “The Torah in Matthew: Still Valid, yet to be Interpreted

Alternatively,” In die Skriflig 50, no. 3 (July 2016): 1-2, accessed August 2,

2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i3.2036; Samuel Sandmel, Anti-

Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1978), 51.

http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i3.2036

Jason Hensley

16

offend Jewish monotheism.71 And thus, “Matthew’s narrative is often

considered the ‘most Jewish’ of the Gospels.”72

With these considerations, it can be suggested that Matthew still

considered himself to be Jewish and a proponent of a flavor of Judaism.

It was this Judaism that he sought to bring to his Jewish audience. This

background should color the way in which the gospel is understood––

suggesting that if the author of the gospel saw himself as a religious

Jew, and the audience saw themselves as Jews, it is highly unlikely that

the gospel itself is anti-Jewish.73

The Cultural Context of Matthew 27 - Jewish Sects and Debate

But it was not just Matthew and his audience that were Jewish––at one

point, all of Christianity saw itself as Jewish: “Jesus of Nazareth was a

Jew; he was, moreover, a Jew who lived in Palestine before the

destruction of the Jerusalem Temple by Roman soldiers in 70 C.E.; and,

perhaps more significantly, his thought was shaped by the dynamic

currents within that Judaism.”74 As a speaker in Jewish synagogues

during the first century (Mt 4:23), Jesus’s talks would have fit within

71 Douglas R. A. Hare, “The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptic Gospels and

Acts,” in Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed. Alan T.

Davies (New York, Paulist Press, 1979), 40.




73 I think it is very important here to remember that this essay is considering anti-

Judaism, which by definition is animus towards Judaism as a religion. As such,

a religion can have many different sects, and I see this as essentially one sect of

Judaism writing polemic about other sects: the Pharisees, the scribes, and the

Sadducees, as argued in the previous section. Therefore, I would classify

Matthew’s writing as anti-Pharisee or anti-Sadducee, but not anti-Jewish. See

also Steve Motyer, Antisemitism in the New Testament (Cambridge: Grove

Books Limited, 2002), 7-8. Nevertheless, Ruether would appear to disagree.

Rosemary Ruether, “The Faith and Fratricide Discussion: Old Problems and

New Dimensions,” in Antisemitism and the Foundations of Christianity, ed.

Alan T. Davies (New York, Paulist Press, 1979), 232-233.

74 James Charlesworth, “Preface,” in Jesus’ Judaism, ed. James Charlesworth,

(New York & Philadelphia: The Crossroad Publishing Company & The

American Interfaith Institute, 1991), 15.


17

the framework of contemporary Judaism and its customs,75 and the

way in which Jesus spoke was customarily Jewish.76 The apostle Paul,

whom some see as a major proponent of the separation between

Christianity and Judaism,77 appears to have been religiously observant

(Acts 21:17-26), and referred to the Gentiles as being grafted onto the

Jewish olive tree (Rom 11:11-24) and part of the “commonwealth of

Israel” (Eph 2:12-13).78 In 64 C.E., the emperor Nero even saw the

Christians as a Jewish sect––declaring that this Jewish group who

followed “Christus” would suffer for the fire that had come upon

Rome.79 Thus, for years, even after Jesus’s death, Christianity was part

of Judaism.

Matthew’s words should therefore be understood in the context of

Jewish sectarian debate, or even in the light of the prophets in the

Jewish Scriptures.80 Just like Moses, Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel,

Matthew’s Jesus spoke vehemently against those who were Jews.81

Others have compared Matthew’s statements with contemporary

Jewish polemic, and have come to the conclusion that his statements

are either mild or similar to what can be found in the rabbinical

75 Lilian Freudmann, Antisemitism in the New Testament (Lanham, MD:

University Press of America, Inc., 1994), 231.

76 Ibid, 232.

77 Samuel, Sandmel, Anti-Semitism in the New Testament? (Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1978), 6-7; Robert Wistrich, Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred (New

York: Schocken Books, 1991), 14-15.

78 Harvey Cox, “Rabbi Yeshua Ben Joseph: Reflections on Jesus’ Jewishness and

the Interfaith Dialogue,” in Jesus’ Judaism, ed. James Charlesworth, (New

York & Philadelphia: The Crossroad Publishing Company & The American

Interfaith Institute, 1991), 41-43.

79 James Carroll, Constantine’s Sword (New York: First Mariner Books, 2002), 85.




81 Amy-Jill Levine & Marc Zvi Brettler, “Gospels and Acts,” in The Annotated

Jewish New Testament (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017), 6. Ben

Birnbaum, “Legacy of Blood: Can Christianity Be Purged of Anti-Semitism

without Changing the Gospels?,” Moment Magazine, October 2001.

Jason Hensley

18

writings,82 or from the Qumran community.83 And the purpose of this

type of debate is so that one might differentiate one sect from another

and creating a group identification.84 Thus, considering this cultural

context, Matthew was perhaps attempting, not to condemn Jews, but to

make a clear delineation:85 between those Jews who followed Jesus

and those Jews who followed Pharisaism or the religious establishment

of the Temple in Jerusalem.

Conclusion

Anti-Judaism has been defined in this article as an idea that has four

manifestations: a portrayal of the Jews as being eternally rejected by God,

a replacement of the Jews with the Church, an inherited guilt upon all

followers of Judaism for the crucifixion, and a demonizing of those who

follow Judaism. Under that definition, and with the considering the textual

and cultural contexts of the Gospel of Matthew guiding this interpretation,

it can be asserted that the phrase “His blood be on us and on our children!”

was not originally anti-Jewish, and that neither was the entire Gospel of

Matthew.

While the Gospel of Matthew may seem to be anti-Jewish, it was not

originally. As time passed and as circumstances changed––as Christians

separated from Judaism and as the Gospel was further removed from its

cultural context––the vitriolic rhetoric that Matthew presented was no

longer seen as two sects quarreling within Judaism, but as two

82 James D. G. Dunn, “The Embarrassment of History: Reflections on the Problem

of ‘Anti-Judaism’ in the Fourth Gospel,” in Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel,

eds. R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, & F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville (Louisville,

KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001), 52.

83 In that regard, Donaldson writes, “The New Testament authors are no more anti-

Judaic than was Jeremiah or Qumran's Teacher of Righteousness”; Terence L.

Donaldson, Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament (Waco, TX: Baylor




A. Evans & Donald A. Hagner (Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993), 55-56.

85 Philip Cunningham, Education for Shalom (Philadelphia: The American

Interfaith Institute, 1995), 10-11.


19

diametrically opposed religions. And thus, anti-Judaism was read into this

gospel and this anti-Jewish interpretation of Matthew became part of the

Christian tradition until after the Holocaust, when recent scholarship has

attempted to return to the textual and cultural context of the gospel. In

other words, for centuries, many Christian groups have misread their own

sacred writings.

It is acknowledged that this was not an exhaustive study, and perhaps at

this point, that is one of this article’s greatest weaknesses. Therefore, in

the future, in order to make this examination more complete, a fuller study

of all Matthew’s other seemingly anti-Jewish verses must be undertaken.

Additionally, if the assertion of this article is correct and Matthew’s gospel

has been misread by various Christian denominations for centuries, what

of the other gospels? And what of the epistles? Could it be that if anti-

Judaism has been read into the gospel of Matthew because of a

misunderstanding of the textual and cultural context in which it was

written, that the unified New Testament corpus as a whole has been

misunderstood in this regard? Could it be that the passages that are

typically deemed anti-Jewish, such as John’s references to the Jews being

born of the devil and his phrase the “synagogue of Satan” were not

originally written as anti-Jewish rhetoric? Thus, ultimately, this article is

a call for further study, not just in the gospel of Matthew, but in the entirety

of the New Testament. Even more, it is a call to consider why and when

Christianity began to misunderstand and misapply Matthew’s writings.

At the same time, this article itself has far-reaching implications: the very

verse which has been uses as the basis for so much bloodshed, “his blood

be on us and on our children!” is not a condemnation of Jews for all time.

It was a condemnation of a specific few sects of Judaism and of two

generations of those sects. In effect, those murderers who staged pogroms

and who supported violent antisemitism because they believed that this

verse, and the gospel of Matthew, supported it, have had their divine

mandated pulled out from under them. Not only is violent antisemitism

ethically wrong, but it is not supported by the Gospel of Matthew––indeed,

it is condemned by the gospel, in which Jesus lifted up “love your neighbor

as yourself” as one of the greatest commandments. Matthean Christians

are not those who fight against the Jews. Matthean Christians recognize

their Jewish heritage and follow a Jesus and a group of apostles who

Jason Hensley

20

acknowledged their Jewish heritage, and held a respect for Judaism––a

respect for Judaism which should continue today with their followers.

Sources

“Anti-Semitism.” Cambridge Dictionary. Accessed December 22, 2019.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-semitism.

Bieringer, Reimund, Didier Pollefeyt, & Frederique Vandecasteele-Vanneuville.

“Wrestling with Johannine Anti-Judaism: A Hermeneutical Framework for the

Analysis of the Current Debate.” In Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel, edited

by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, & F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Louisville, KY:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Birnbaum, Ben. “Legacy of Blood: Can Christianity Be Purged of Anti-Semitism

without Changing the Gospels?” Moment Magazine, October 2001.

Bloomberg, Craig L. “Matthew.” In Commentary on the New Testament Use of the

Old Testament, edited by G.K. Beale and D. A. Carson. Grand Rapids, MI:

Baker, 2007.

Carroll, James. Constantine’s Sword. New York: First Mariner Books, 2002.

Charlesworth, James. “Preface.” In Jesus’ Judaism, edited by James Charlesworth.

New York & Philadelphia: The Crossroad Publishing Company & The

American Interfaith Institute, 1991.

Chazan, Robert. From Anti-Judaism to Anti-Semitism. New York: Cambridge

University Press, 2016.

Chrysostom, John. “Homilies of St. John Chrysostom, Archbishop of

Constantinople, on the Gospel According to St. Matthew.” In Nicene and Post-

Nicene Fathers – Series I, Volume 10, edited by Philip Schaff. 1885. Reprint,

Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.html.

Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. “We Remember: A Reflection

on the Shoah.” The Holy See. Accessed August 2, 2019.



Cox, Harvey. “Rabbi Yeshua Ben Joseph: Reflections on Jesus’ Jewishness and the

Interfaith Dialogue.” In Jesus’ Judaism, edited by James Charlesworth. New

York & Philadelphia: The Crossroad Publishing Company & The American

Interfaith Institute, 1991.

Cunningham, Philip. Education for Shalom. Philadelphia: The American Interfaith

Institute, 1995.

Cymet, David. History vs. Apologetics: The Holocaust, the Third Reich, and the

Catholic Church. Lanham: Lexington Books, 2012.

Donaldson, Terence L., Jews and Anti-Judaism in the New Testament. Waco, TX:

Baylor University Press, 2010.

Dunn, James D. G. “The Embarrassment of History: Reflections on the Problem of

‘Anti-Judaism’ in the Fourth Gospel.” In Anti-Judaism in the Fourth Gospel,

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/english/anti-semitismhttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/npnf110.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html


21

edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, & F. Vandecasteele-Vanneuville.

Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2001.

Fredriksen, Paula. “The Birth of Christianity.” In Jesus, Judaism, and Christian

Anti-Judaism, edited by Paula Fredriksen & Adele Reinhartz. Louisville:

Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Freudmann, Lilian. Antisemitism in the New Testament. Lanham: University Press

of America, 1994.

Gale, Aaron M. “27:11-26.” The Jewish Annotated New Testament, edited by Amy-

Jill Levine & Marc Zvi Brettler. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

Gale, Aaron M. “The Gospel According to Matthew.” In The Jewish Annotated

New Testament, edited by Amy-Jill Levine & Marc Zvi Brettler. Oxford:

Oxford University Press, 2017.

Gaston, Lloyd. “The Messiah of Israel as Teacher of the Gentiles: The Setting of

Matthew's Christology.” Union Seminary Review 29.1 (1975): 24-40.

https://doi.org/10.1177/002096437502900103.

Gaston, Lloyd. “Paul and the Torah.” In AntiSemitism and the Foundations of

Christianity, edited by Alan T. Davies. New York, Paulist Press, 1979.

Goldhagen, Daniel Jonah. A Moral Reckoning. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2002.

Hare, Douglas R. A. “The Rejection of the Jews in the Synoptic Gospels and Acts.”

In Anti-Semitism and the Foundations of Christianity, edited by Alan T. Davies

(New York, Paulist Press, 1979.

Hay, Malcom. Thy Brother’s Blood. New York: Hart Publishing Company, 1975.

House of Bishops of the Episcopal Church. Quoted in Clark Williamson. A Guest in

the House of Israel: Post-Holocaust Church Theology. Louisville: Westminster

John Knox Press, 1993.

John Paul II. Quoted in Commission for Religious Relations with the Jews. “We

Remember: A Reflection on the Shoah.” The Holy See. Accessed March 12,

2018.



Jukes, Andrew. Four Views of Christ. Grand Rapids: Kregel Publications, 1982.

Levine, Amy-Jill. “Matthew, Mark, and Luke: Good News or Bad?” In Jesus,

Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, edited by Paula Fredriksen & Adele

Reinhartz. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Levine, Amy-Jill & Marc Zvi Brettler. “Gospels and Acts.” In The Annotated

Jewish New Testament. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2017.

McKnight, Scot. “A Loyal Critic: Matthew’s Polemic with Judaism in Theological

Perspective.” In Anti-Semitism and Early Christianity, edited by Craig A.

Evans & Donald A. Hagner. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 1993.

Meier, John P. “Reflection on Jesus-of-History Research Today.” Jesus’

Jewishness, edited by James H. Charlesworth. New York & Philadelphia: The

Crossroad Publishing Company & The American Interfaith Institute, 1991.

http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/chrstuni/documents/rc_pc_chrstuni_doc_16031998_shoah_en.html

Jason Hensley

22

Motyer, Steve. Antisemitism in the New Testament. Cambridge: Grove Books

Limited, 2002.

Nicholls, William. Christian Antisemitism. Northvale, NJ: Jason Aronson Inc.,

1993.

Origin. “Commentary on the Gospel of John.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 9,

edited by Philip Schaff. 1885. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Christian Classics

Ethereal Library. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.html.

Pagels, Elaine. The Origin of Satan. New York: Vintage Books, 1996.

Phayer, Michael. The Catholic Church and the Holocaust. Bloomington: Indiana

University Press, 2000.

Pope Paul VI. “Declaration on the Relation of the Church to Non-Christian

Religions.” The Holy See. Accessed August 2, 2019.

http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-

ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.html.

Ruether, Rosemary. Faith and Fratricide. New York: The Seabury Press, 1979.

Ruether, Rosemary. “Old Problems and New Dimensions.” In AntiSemitism and the

Foundations of Christianity, edited by Alan T. Davies. New York, Paulist

Press, 1979.

Sanders, E.P. “Jesus, Ancient Judaism, and Modern Christianity: The Quest

Continues.” In Jesus, Judaism, & Christian Anti-Judaism, edited by Paula

Fredriksen & Adele Reinhartz. Louisville, Westminster John Knox Press, 2002.

Sandmel, Samuel. Anti-Semitism in the New Testament?. Philadelphia: Fortress

Press, 1978.

Schaff, Philip. “Elucidation.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 3, edited by Philip

Schaff. 1885. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal Library.

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.html.

Tertullian. “Against Marcion.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 3, edited by

Philip Schaff. 1885. Reprint, Grand Rapids: Christian Classics Ethereal

Library. https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.html.

“The German Church and the Nazi State.” United States Holocaust Memorial

Museum. Accessed March 6, 2018.

http://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206.

“The Gospel of Nicodemus.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 8, edited by Philip



“The Passing of Mary.” In Ante-Nicene Fathers – Volume 8, edited by Philip



The World Council of Churches. Quoted in “Jews and Christians: The Unfolding

Interfaith Relationship.” United States Holocaust Memorial and Museum.

Accessed March 15, 2018. https://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-

https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf09.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.htmlhttp://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decl_19651028_nostra-aetate_en.htmlhttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.htmlhttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf03.htmlhttp://www.ushmm.org/wlc/en/article.php?ModuleId=10005206https://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.htmlhttps://www.ccel.org/ccel/schaff/anf08.htmlhttps://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationship


23

advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-

and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationship.

Tomson, Peter J., ‘“Jews ’in the Gospel of John as Compared with the Palestinian

Talmud, the Synoptics, and Some New Testament Apocrypha.” In Anti-

Judaism in the Fourth Gospel, edited by R. Bieringer, D. Pollefeyt, & F.

Vandecasteele-Vanneuville. Louisville, KY: Westminster John Knox Press,

2001.

Viljoen, Francois P. “The Torah in Matthew: Still Valid, yet to be Interpreted

Alternatively.” In die Skriflig 50, no. 3 (July 2016): 1-10. Accessed August 2,

2018. http://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i3.2036.

Whittaker, Harry. Studies in the Gospels - Extended Edition. Staffordshire: Biblia,

1989.

Wistrich, Robert. Antisemitism: The Longest Hatred. New York: Schocken Books,

1991.
https://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationshiphttps://www.ushmm.org/research/the-center-for-advanced-holocaust-studies/programs-ethics-religion-the-holocaust/articles-and-resources/jews-and-christians-the-unfolding-interfaith-relationshiphttp://dx.doi.org/10.4102/ids.v50i3.2036

“his blood be on us and on our children!”: a …biblicaltheology.com/research/hensleyj01.pdf19...

Documents